H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1931 THE LIFE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXI, Issue 305, 9 December 1931, Page 6

H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1931 THE LIFE OF PARLIAMENT.

Seemingly authoritative reports from Wellington indicate that it is in serious contemplation to afford our new Parliament opportunity to consider the question of lengthening the statutory period for which members of the House of Representatives will in future be chosen by the electors. This is a subject that has come up for casual discussion at fairly frequent intervals since the passing of the Triennial Parliaments Act in 1879. During the more than half-century that has passed since that date the law has decreed that the life of no Parliament should extend beyond a maximum of three years. Prior to this legislation the normal term of each Parliament was set at five years. According to the debates on the Bill it would seem that at that time one of the chief arguments advanced in its support arose out of the abolition of the provincial legislatures that had been carried through some four years earlier. These provincial councils exercised fairly wide powers in relation to local affairs that their abolition brought within the scope and authority of the central legislature. It was therefore contended that it had become necessary to bring members of Parliament into direct contact with their constituencies at more frequent intervals. This is an argument that carries very much less weight to-day, when communication is so vastly more frequent and rapid and a widespread press provides the people in all parts with daily news of what their representatives are saying and doing. The arguments in favour of extension are fairly familiar to those who take any interest in matters political. It is said that threeyears Parliaments provide only one really effective year for each. In the first year the new House does little more than get itself settled down to the serious business of the State. In the third year members have their minds

set very much mure on the election at the end of it than on pailiamentary proceedings ,in which, too, their votes are very greatly influenced by thoughts of how best to woo their own constituencies. There is no doubt a good deal of sound common sense in these suggestions, as anyone may gather from noting the invariable scramble to rush important legislation through towards the close of the session immediately preceding a general election. On these grounds it would seem that it would be a sound move to extend the term of Parliament for at least one year. The main objection, of course, is that the longer term might find strongly entrenched behind an assured majority a Government that could not be regarded likely to carry out the changing views of the mass of the people. This, from the ultra-democratic standpoint, might be regarded as a fatal objection, but, on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that because a Government has lost popularity it is not bent on doing what in the end will be best for the people themselves. The worst feature of the parliamentary system since the three parties came into vogue is the way in which Governments maintain themselves in office by temporising with an Opposition group, possibly of very scant strength, with which they have little if anything in common. That feature has been in marked evidence both here and in the Old Country during the lives of the Parliaments that have here and there recently come to an end. There is also, of course, tne question of the extra cost to the country involved in the more frequent elections. That, however, is a consideration to which too much importance may be attached at a time when thoughts of economy are being forced upon us. Looking abroad for guidance, it is worth while noting that though both Australia and ourselves have adopted the triennial plan, it Is by no means universal throughout the Empire. In Great Britain, the Irish Free State, Canada and South Africa the normal life of Parliaments is five years, and it can scarcely be said that Governments there are in any way less efficient or less responsive to the general will of the people than are those of Australia and New Zealand. It seems, therefore, a fair conclusion to reach that a four-year term would spell but little danger to us and would probably make for greater stability and steadiness, as well as better considered legislation. All this, however, does not suggest that our new Parliament should assume to itself the right to extend its own term of existence.